Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant challenges his second death sentence following a resentencing trial for the murder and robbery of one of his victims, Velma Odell Noblin, committed in 1982. Originally sentenced to death in 1984, a Fifth Circuit ruling later vacated his sentence due to improper jury instructions. On appeal, the appellant raised multiple issues, including the trial court's refusal to decide on the admissibility of prior bad acts, alleged violations of his Sixth Amendment rights regarding statements to law enforcement and a journalist, and exclusion of mitigating evidence. The appellant argued that mentions of parole during voir dire and the exclusion of certain jurors compromised his trial. Additionally, he challenged the use of his prior murder conviction as an aggravating factor and the prosecutors' closing arguments. The court found all claims without merit, affirming the death sentence as proportionate and in compliance with legal standards. The court's analysis emphasized procedural bars on certain claims, the proper admission of evidence and expert testimony, and the adequacy of jury instructions. The appellant's execution date is to be set within sixty days of the final judgment.
Legal Issues Addressed
Admissibility of Statements to Law Enforcementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Wilcher's incriminating statements were deemed admissible as he voluntarily waived his right to counsel, having been informed of his rights which he did not assert during questioning.
Reasoning: Wilcher did not request an attorney during questioning. His statements were deemed admissible during a 1984 direct appeal.
Constitutionality of Sentencing Instructionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the validity of the jury instruction regarding the 'especially heinous' aggravator, finding it properly limited and supported by the brutal nature of the crime.
Reasoning: The court found that the approved Coleman language in the current case's instruction adequately limited the 'heinous, atrocious, or cruel' criteria, supported by evidence of the brutal nature of the crime committed by Wilcher, who stabbed the victim 31 times, leading to her death.
Exclusion of Mitigating Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the exclusion of mitigating evidence that did not relate specifically to the defendant’s character or the crime’s circumstances.
Reasoning: Consequently, the trial court properly excluded evidence about the harshness of a life sentence as it did not pertain to Wilcher's character or the offense.
Impact of Parole Discussions During Voir Diresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found no reversible error regarding the mention of parole during voir dire, as jurors were properly instructed not to consider parole in their deliberations.
Reasoning: The Court denied the motion, noting that jurors were not permitted to consider parole under the applicable sentencing statutes, except in habitual offender cases.
Procedural Bar on Jury Challenge Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Wilcher's challenge regarding jurors who could not consider mitigating evidence was procedurally barred due to his failure to exhaust peremptory challenges.
Reasoning: Since Wilcher had unused peremptory challenges and the jurors in question did not serve, his argument is barred and lacks merit.
Use of Prior Convictions in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the use of Wilcher's prior murder conviction as an aggravating circumstance, finding no issue with considering it in light of his violent felony history.
Reasoning: The jury was instructed to weigh this conviction in light of the defendant's history of violent felonies.